Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
41 lines (34 loc) · 4.3 KB

attack-surface.md

File metadata and controls

41 lines (34 loc) · 4.3 KB

Attack Surface Analysis for sparkle-project/sparkle

Attack Surface: 1. Appcast File Manipulation (Network-Based)

  • Description: Attackers modify the appcast file to control the update process, directing users to malicious updates.
  • How Sparkle Contributes: Sparkle relies entirely on the appcast file as the definitive source for update information (URLs, versions, signatures). Its integrity is the foundation of Sparkle's security.
  • Example: An attacker uses a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack to intercept the HTTPS connection to the appcast server and inject a modified appcast pointing to a malicious update.
  • Impact: Complete application compromise; attacker-controlled code execution on user machines.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Enforce HTTPS with Strict Validation: Use HTTPS exclusively for appcast delivery. Implement strict certificate validation, ensuring it cannot be bypassed. Consider certificate pinning (with careful planning for key rotation).
      • Secure Appcast Server: Protect the server hosting the appcast with robust security measures (firewalls, intrusion detection/prevention, regular security audits, and prompt patching).
      • Appcast Integrity Monitoring: Implement file integrity monitoring (FIM) on the appcast server to detect any unauthorized modifications.

Attack Surface: 2. Signature Verification Bypass

  • Description: Attackers bypass the digital signature verification of the downloaded update, allowing them to install malicious code.
  • How Sparkle Contributes: Sparkle's primary security mechanism is the verification of the update's digital signature against the developer's embedded public key. This is the critical check.
  • Example: An attacker obtains the developer's private signing key (through theft, social engineering, or a server breach) and uses it to sign a malicious update that will pass Sparkle's verification.
  • Impact: Complete application compromise; attacker-controlled code execution.
  • Risk Severity: Critical
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Secure Private Key (HSM): Protect the private signing key with the utmost care. Use a Hardware Security Module (HSM) if at all possible. Never store the private key in source control or on easily accessible systems.
      • Strong Signature Algorithm (Ed25519): Ensure Sparkle is configured to use a strong, modern signature algorithm like Ed25519. Avoid older, weaker algorithms.
      • Keep Sparkle Updated: Regularly update to the latest stable release of Sparkle to benefit from any security patches that address potential verification logic flaws.
      • Code Review (Custom Delegates): Thoroughly review any custom SUUpdaterDelegate implementations to ensure they do not interfere with or weaken Sparkle's signature verification process.

Attack Surface: 3. Downgrade Attacks

  • Description: Attackers force the application to install an older, vulnerable version, reintroducing known security flaws that were previously patched.
  • How Sparkle Contributes: Sparkle, by default, does not prevent the installation of older versions. This is a configuration choice left to the developer.
  • Example: An attacker modifies the appcast to point to an older version of the application that contains a known, exploitable vulnerability. Sparkle, without downgrade protection, will install this older version.
  • Impact: Re-introduction of known vulnerabilities; potential for exploitation and compromise, potentially leading to full control.
  • Risk Severity: High
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Developer:
      • Implement Downgrade Prevention: This is essential. Use the minimumSystemVersion attribute in the appcast, or implement a custom SUUpdaterDelegate method, to explicitly prevent the installation of any version older than the currently installed one.
      • Monotonic Versioning: Use a strictly increasing version numbering scheme (e.g., semantic versioning) to make downgrade detection straightforward and reliable.